Hey I was wondering whether PUT requests are only based on size, or whether there is an absolute fee for each PUT request down to a certain minimum (which I feel like, I saw somewhere was 3 kb?).
So if I do 1 request of 100 kb, or 10 requests of 10 kb, or 100 requests of 1 kb, what are the costs?
The reason I ask is for things like realtime collaborative editing (i.e. Google docs), you would have to have near constant very small put requests which are being pushed out to everyone. (I am assuming that data deduplication etc, will take care of what was already saved, so that you donât have to pay for the cost of the entire document, each time you make a change).
This would also be relevant for things like streaming video through the SAFE network, where you need to be PUTing smaller files very fast.
I assume that the âuser accountâ keeps track of this, meaning that each chunk stored subtracts from the total resource a user has paid forâi.e., if I had 100 Mb resource allocation paid for, for which paid 1 safecoin to the network, say, then I sent a 30Mb file to be stored, my account would show that I had 70Mb left that I could PUT before being unable to PUT more without topping off my resource with more safecoin. Correct?
I was under the impression you get charged for the exact amount of space you use at the moment of PUTting that data to the network. No allocation in advance. SafeCoins are divisible so it should be possible. I can see all sorts of economic problems by allowing allocation in advance.
Safecoin will be divisible, but wonât be divided till some time in the future, and as needed. What youâre talking about would require super-granularity from the start, and then figuring a price per kilobyte on the fly.
If I (for instance) allocate 5 safecoin to purchase 1 Tb of storage or other PUTs, I then will know that thatâs the resource I have, regardless of the changing price of Safecoin as time passes. Perhaps later that same 5 SC would get me 4 Tb, but Iâve got the 1 Tb when I acquire it, and thatâs that. The difference reflects the changing value of Safecoin as a currency. Any other safecoin I have can then be used for other exchanges not directly related to core network function (like a physical product or a third party service).
The storage and network function is the utility value of Safecoin (like making electronics with gold), while the rest is the money value.
This sounds strange to me. The way you phrase that sounds like at some point a network-wide division by two or by four will be âenabledâ for the entire network. I really donât see what the purpose is of âlockingâ SafeCoin division. The value is already nearing $0.06, and weâre not even in BETA yet. At launch it might very well be $0.20 or higher. I think users should be able to send SafeCoin to others with a higher precision than that.
I also looked at division on a technical level some time ago, and I donât see any big technical obstacles either.
The value is already nearing $0.06, and weâre not even in BETA yet. At launch it might very well be $0.20 or higher. I think users should be able to send SafeCoin to others with a higher precision than that.
Goof point! The same goes for micropayments.
So does this make subdividing Safecoin necessary or do you have a clever workaround for this @dirvine?
Point taken. I hadnât been aware that it had appreciated that much.
I donât know about the ease/difficulty, but I do remember from a number of comments that @dirvine has expressed that it would be a bit of a pain that he didnât want to get into at this stage. Perhaps it would be better to subdivide prior to launch, thoughâI donât know. I anxioujsly await his response to @happybeingâs question above.
No need to subdivide safecoin for this purpose (thank God, we are beyond busy ) If your account is charged then it is charged up and the account managers can handle the amount of space and safecoin easily. So they will work on subdivisions but not charge these, only full coins.
Donât know if it might be possible, but if the price of the maidsafe token is say $US 0.20 at launch, and it is desirable to have micropayments around $US 0.01, then simply inflate the supply when the tokens are âburnedâ for safecoin at a given rate, so for the example amounts above, at a 20:1 ratio. Of course this would likely also mean increasing the total amount of ultimate safecoin by the same factor - to keep the expectations that people are already using to value the token from changing. I think this would be the same as subdividing, but without so many coding complexities.
Itâs not possible for the network to know what the $US value is of one SafeCoin.
Releasing new coins to lower the value is easy, absorbing existing coins to increase the value is not. The network canât absorb more coins than people PUT in. As a result the network can only reliably decrease SafeCoinâs value, and not reliably increase it when falls below the target.
It would disincentivize people to hold SafeCoin, since the price can only really go down.
Converting SafeCoin to an inflationary $US-pegged currency would majorly screw over all IPO investors and other current holders of MaidSafeCoin. It would plummet MaidSafeCoin to at least 17% of itâs current value, and probably even lower.
I think youâve misunderstood my suggestion. Iâm not saying it should be pegged to the dollar. Iâm saying that a multiple could be set at the time of launch in accordance with the value of the maidsafe token at that time - the multiplier would be permanent. Currently the multiplier as I understand it, is 1:1 and I believe this could be changed without too much of a hassle.
So long as the total number of safecoin is also permanently changed to the same multiplier, it would only have a psychological disturbance to the market - the actual value of what is held would remain constant as it remains in the same ratio.
Ah, I see. I indeed misunderstood, I thought you were talking about the recycling. My apologies.
I wouldnât be against that, though it would only help for a short while. If the SafeCoin value increases significantly after launch weâre back to the same issue. It would give the developers some extra time though.
Also, this would require a change to SafeCoinâs data structure. Currently every SafeCoin will have a unique ID of 32 bits, hence there can only be 2^32 SafeCoins (this is very different from Bitcoins, where coins donât exist as unique data structures but simply as values tied to an address). Iâm not sure if this would then cause other problems elsewhere.
@dirvine is this a possibility? For all we know the maidsafe token could go to US$1.00 or more around launch time and then higher still. It may become impossible for micro-payments until subdivision is coded inâŚbut if the total amount of safecoin could be increased 100 fold, then the problem is greatly abated. If this is a possibility then maybe a new thread is needed to discuss.
That seems unlikely, but then again⌠MaidSafe didnât expect their 4-week IPO to end in 4 hours or so either. I also think few people expected MaidSafeCoin to reach current valuation even before Test Net 3 either.
One thing that really surpised me is that practically none on bitcointalkâs altcoin section talks about MaidSafe. Almost every single altcoin of the 500+ out there is talked about extensively, but if you search for MaidSafe the only real discussions go back over half a year ago, and then many were of the opinion that MaidSafe is vaporware and a pump and dump.
I think thatâs because of two reasons: The IPO Mastercoin fiasco and MaidSafeâs lack of a blockchain. Seems like currently very few people in the typical altcoin community believe in MaidSafe, and the current valuation is supported by a relatively small group with hardcore faith in it. Imagine what may happen during BETA and after launch when the safernet is actually a reality and looks like to be the next big thing. I wouldnât be surprised if we beat Rippleâs market cap.
I concur. MaidSafe has enormous potential. As an investor I look for groups of knowledgeable people who really believe in their projects - the MaidSafe team has this in spades and they have a product that could conceivably replace the internet as it is today; hence I believe that it is incredibly undervalued - itâs market-cap could eventuate into the hundreds of billions (in $US), maybe more.
They donât talk about it a lot, but believe me, they are aware and waiting with baited breath. When The SAFE network actually launches, itâs going to take the crypto community by storm, internationally. Thereâs still nothing very solid there for people at large to sink their teeth into, so earlier interviews say about as much as can be said till launch, aside from those of us who dig deeper here on the forums, so nobody really knows for sure if itâs real. Great position for MaidSafe to be in, actually.
Also, no one is really sure how this is going to affect bitcoin and blockchain applications. There are still not many people who really understand the underlying system on a nuts and bolts level, even most of us here on the forum donât go really deep, while blockchain tech is out there in the wild, functioning and continuing to improve, with lots of investment, public recognition and a reputation as being unkillable, which goes a long way.
Bitcoin is already poking at the dragons. We (with very good reason) largely just believe, till the network is born and proves to be the dragon slayer we think it is.
